Cincinnatus
Club Legend
- Mar 30, 2018
- 2,006
- 2,227
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Banned
- #126
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Rules of the game - How to successfully make the game more open and attacking?
- Thread starter RUNVS
- Start date
- Tagged users None
It amazes me how many fans make crappy knee-jerk reaction ideas that would completely change the game.
Port_Punter85
Club Legend
- May 12, 2013
- 1,258
- 1,566
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Banned
- #128
Suddenly Adelaide Oval has a roof installed on it.
Cincinnatus
Club Legend
- Mar 30, 2018
- 2,006
- 2,227
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Banned
- #129
Omg, I didnt even realise now Etihad/Marvel tenants have advantage on top of MCG tenants.
#viccobias
Cincinnatus
Club Legend
- Mar 30, 2018
- 2,006
- 2,227
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Banned
- #131
Noone says you HAVE to play for bonus points. Some teams may decide that taking the 4 is better than trying to go for 6.
kane249
Wibble
- Oct 27, 2006
- 52,866
- 71,071
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Sth Freo, Liverpool, Chicago Bulls
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
There is definitely a congestion issue but bonus points aren’t the answer.
How about rewarding holding the man prior to players taking possession of the ball, blocking at the marking contest and chopping.
If the umps paid these frees, we wouldn’t have to change the rules at all.
How about rewarding holding the man prior to players taking possession of the ball, blocking at the marking contest and chopping.
If the umps paid these frees, we wouldn’t have to change the rules at all.
A team that has won less games but scored more because they play at Etihad for example could make finals ahead of a team that has more wins but scored less because they've played in pooring rain a few weeks.
How's that going to down?
Cincinnatus
Club Legend
- Mar 30, 2018
- 2,006
- 2,227
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Banned
- #135
Because umpires have already proven they are entirely incompetent at being consistent.
Cincinnatus
Club Legend
- Mar 30, 2018
- 2,006
- 2,227
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Banned
- #136
Becauze which team plays in the rain for weeks at a time?
Carlton are an Etihad tenant and average about 50 pts.
And where the **** have you got the notion that the AFL is in any way fair?
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
Introduce minimum BMIs and skin fold tests.
Perhaps the issue is players are too fit. They would be forced by nature to hold positions more.
Perhaps the issue is players are too fit. They would be forced by nature to hold positions more.
Make players smoke again
You've missed the point entirely. There are conditions which promote or reduce high scoring. The ground is one of these conditions.
You are suggesting the AFL finals change there formula from rewarding winning games to rewarding high scoring more-so.
As I said, you could see a situation where teams with less wins make the finals ahead of those with more wins because of where they play and the luck of conditions. That's a joke of a system.
The AFL has its inequalities for sure, but they are still based around you have to actually WIN games to take advantage of them. Your model potentially weights scoring over winning in certain circumstances.
Cincinnatus
Club Legend
- Mar 30, 2018
- 2,006
- 2,227
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Banned
- #140
Until the GF is neutral im not listening to people tell me about inequality.
Completely separate issue to your argument. You are talking about the H&A season not finals.
Try again.
Cincinnatus
Club Legend
- Mar 30, 2018
- 2,006
- 2,227
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Banned
- #142
Its the same principle, you are telling me the advantages are there for those that win, but for an interstate team who finishes top, wins both finals, there is no advantage when you face a Vic club in the GF. There is in fact a disadvantage. Weather is entirely random and the Super Rugby league has no problems witb the system.
It's not the same principal. Winning a game is winning a game.
You are trying to alter the reward based on other variables.
The GF is an issue, but not an issue that relates to your point. It's a separate issue.
Cincinnatus
Club Legend
- Mar 30, 2018
- 2,006
- 2,227
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Banned
- #144
It is entirely the same principle.
In any case, I believe it encourages teams to focus on kicking big scores. Thats entertaining footy without rule changes to the game.
You've changed the way teams will make finals, or finish top 4, or get home finals, or how the number one pick is awarded, etc through the home and away system and your justification is "well the game isn't fair anyway because of the GF at the MCG so who cares".
Your idea and your argument are both terrible.
Cincinnatus
Club Legend
- Mar 30, 2018
- 2,006
- 2,227
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Banned
- #146
No you just want to keep the GF because your side is a tenant.
Good backtracking.
The GF venue has nothing to do with your proposed argument, but I guess you don't have much of an argument left now.
Whether you think the GF venue should change or not is a separate issue than bonus points in H&A
Interstaters constantly sook about the GF venue. Just wait for the sooking if there was bonus points and some Etihad tenants made finals ahead of interstate sides because in the last round they played under a roof and Adelaide played under a storm.
I can see it now.
F OFF VIC BIAS CORRUPT AFL PLAYING UNDER A ROOF BONUS POINT ITS NOT FAIR VIC VIC VIC CORRUPT VFL BIAS
Don't deny what you know would be true
Cincinnatus
Club Legend
- Mar 30, 2018
- 2,006
- 2,227
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Banned
- #148
Yes, correct its a separate issue but the same principle going by YOUR definition of the prinicple.
Anyway this will go in circles so we will agree ti disagree on the bonus pts thing.
Let's play a game.
Let's pretend the AFL is dying. And it isn't popular, and young kids aren't gravitating towards it like they did in the old days.
And you are the CEO in charge of restructuring the competition from the ground up. Not just the rules, but the very foundations of the game from how many teams are in the comp to where the matches are played and how many matches there are to where the gf is played to how many players per team, interchange rules if you think that's important.
Whatever it may be, that would make you think the competition will be in a better place 200 years from now.
Personally I dont think the AFL have done a very good job of transitioning into a professional sport and it's ties to the VFL are too strong leading to an uneven competition and oversaturation of financially unsustainable teams in Melbourne.
Let's be honest. It's still the VFL and the interstate clubs just get to play in it.
And if they wanted to do what's best for the game for 200 yrs from now it would be very easy imo.
I would axe and or merge all of north, Carlton, saints, bulldogs, gold coast, gws. That's 3 less teams if you merge 1 with 1. Move one of those merged teams to tassie.
That's 15 teams and 14 matches a yr. You either play every team once with no byes and have a best of 3 finals every finals round. Or play every team twice for 28 match season once at home and once away and keep the current finals format and bye FORMAT.
I would still keep the gf a Saturday day game at the G for the next 200 yrs as well.. What can I say, I'm a stickler for tradition.
That would look like a much healthier, financially sustainable, professional product than that of which we get today.
... And don't worry. You don't have to like my ideas. I'm not asking you to.
But what I am asking is: What changes would YOU make to the game to make it more professional and sustainable for the next 200 years?
Let's pretend the AFL is dying. And it isn't popular, and young kids aren't gravitating towards it like they did in the old days.
And you are the CEO in charge of restructuring the competition from the ground up. Not just the rules, but the very foundations of the game from how many teams are in the comp to where the matches are played and how many matches there are to where the gf is played to how many players per team, interchange rules if you think that's important.
Whatever it may be, that would make you think the competition will be in a better place 200 years from now.
Personally I dont think the AFL have done a very good job of transitioning into a professional sport and it's ties to the VFL are too strong leading to an uneven competition and oversaturation of financially unsustainable teams in Melbourne.
Let's be honest. It's still the VFL and the interstate clubs just get to play in it.
And if they wanted to do what's best for the game for 200 yrs from now it would be very easy imo.
I would axe and or merge all of north, Carlton, saints, bulldogs, gold coast, gws. That's 3 less teams if you merge 1 with 1. Move one of those merged teams to tassie.
That's 15 teams and 14 matches a yr. You either play every team once with no byes and have a best of 3 finals every finals round. Or play every team twice for 28 match season once at home and once away and keep the current finals format and bye FORMAT.
I would still keep the gf a Saturday day game at the G for the next 200 yrs as well.. What can I say, I'm a stickler for tradition.
That would look like a much healthier, financially sustainable, professional product than that of which we get today.
... And don't worry. You don't have to like my ideas. I'm not asking you to.
But what I am asking is: What changes would YOU make to the game to make it more professional and sustainable for the next 200 years?
I would remove the crows from the AFL
Similar threads
